Standing Committee D

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Licensing Bill [Lords]

Clause 115 - APPLICATION FOR GRANT OR RENEWAL OF PERSONAL LICENCE

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 433,-[Mr Moss.] in 
clause 115, page 64, line 2, after 'or', insert 'a copy thereof, or'.
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Joe Benton: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following:
 Amendment No. 437, in 
clause 115, page 64, line 6, at beginning insert 
 'Save where the licence has been surrendered,'.
 Amendment No. 389, in 
clause 115, page 64, line 6, leave out 'two' and insert 'three'.
 Amendment No. 390, in 
clause 115, page 64, line 7, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.
 Amendment No. 438, in 
clause 115, page 64, line 8, at end add— 
 '(6A) Where a licence has been surrendered under section 114 an application for renewal may be made at any time.'.
 Amendment No. 439, in 
clause 117, page 64, line 17, at beginning insert 
 'Save where the licence has been surrendered,'.
 Amendment No. 391, in 
clause 117, page 64, line 23, at end insert— 
 '(1A) If the application has still not been determined three months after the licence expired the licence holder will be entitled to compensation from the relevant licensing authority.'.
 Amendment No. 440, in 
clause 117, page 64, line 23, at end insert— 
 '(1A) Where an application for renewal is made in accordance with section 115 relating to a licence which has been surrendered, the licence shall have effect from the date of determination of the application.'.

Kim Howells: Welcome back to the Committee, Mr. Benton. Before we suspended this morning, the Committee was riveted by my words. I was speaking to amendments Nos. 389 and 390. I said that we thought that the time frame was pitched correctly and struck the right balance. I pointed out that, as a consequence, I cannot support those amendments.
 Clause 117 provides that when an application for renewal of a personal licence has been made in accordance with clause 115 and the application has not been determined before the time when it would normally have expired, it is automatically extended until such time as the application is withdrawn or determined. That means that the individual can 
 continue to sell alcohol and conduct his business, and cannot therefore suffer because of the inefficiency of a licensing authority. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) is looking a bit perplexed; I am dealing with amendment No. 391 now. 
 The amendment is important because we anticipate that during transition more than 150,000 personal licences will be issued during a period of about six months. Accordingly, 10 years later there will be a large number of applications for renewal in a similar period of about six months. That will be a significant task for the licensing authorities and delays will not always necessarily be their fault. That is why we propose a system that protects applicants caught up in such a delay. 
 Amendment No. 391 would put huge pressures on licensing authorities for no reason whatever. It would establish an applicant's right to compensation if his application were not determined within three months of his applying. As he cannot suffer because of any delay since his licence would automatically be extended beyond its normal expiry date, what would that compensation be for? I cannot support the amendment because it seems pointless. 
 Before I address amendments Nos. 437, 438, 439 and 440 it would be helpful for me to explain a little about clause 114. It allows the holder of a personal licence to surrender it by giving notice to the relevant licensing authority. That is the individual's choice. He might do that on retirement or following a change of career. His advantage in doing so would be, for example, no longer to have to notify changes of address. He would be under no compulsion to surrender the licence in any circumstances. For example, he would not have to surrender it when he was out of a job. When he makes that decision of his own volition, the licence ceases to have any effect. I do not intend to rehearse Monty Python's dead parrot sketch to explain the impact of that, but the licence has ''ceased to be''. We cannot renew something that does not exist. The appropriate course would be to apply for a new personal licence. 
 The wording of the amendments would mean that an applicant for renewal who had surrendered his licence 30 years earlier could apply to renew it without any need to undergo a test of current licensing law and social responsibility. That is not a desirable approach, because things have changed. Some people coming to the subject find it difficult to set aside the existing licensing regime when considering the provisions of the Bill. At present, every time a licensee leaves a pub or an off-licence, the justice's licence lapses and a new one must be sought when the individual takes up his next posting. That will not happen under the Bill. The personal licence will be mobile and can be used in any premises covered by a premises licence or where temporary activities are permitted. Under the new arrangements, the surrender of a personal licence will only ever arise by choice, and the individual must weigh up all the factors before committing himself or herself to the act of surrender. 
 Against that background, I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire will agree 
 that this group of amendments is neither desirable nor necessary, and will not press them.

Malcolm Moss: Welcome back to the Committee, Mr. Benton.
 In view of the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 115, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 116 - Individual permitted to hold only one personal licence

Amendment made: No. 27, in 
clause 116, page 64, line 12, leave out 'Central Licensing Authority' and insert 
 'licensing authority to which it was made or has been withdrawn'.—[Dr. Howells.]
 Clause 116, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 117 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 118 - Determination of application for grant

Mark Hoban: I beg to move amendment No. 431, in
clause 118, page 64, line 31, leave out 
 'is a person of a prescribed description' 
 and insert 'relevant experience'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 432, in 
clause 118, page 64, line 36, at end insert— 
 '(2A) The Secretary of State may by regulations define ''relevant experience'' as referred to in subsection (2)(b) above.'.
 Amendment No. 416, in 
clause 118, page 65, line 30, after 'Secretary of State', insert 
 'or under the Higher and Further Education Acts'.

Mark Hoban: I welcome you to the afternoon sitting, Mr. Benton. Let me set out why I have tabled probing amendments on the issue set out in subsection (2) of clause 118.
 The Bill states: 
''The authority must grant the licence if it appears to it that . . . he possesses a licensing qualification or is a person of a prescribed description''.
 The introduction of qualifications to cover various activities is an issue that concerns me, and it has been the subject of correspondence in my postbag. I have received letters from gas heating installers among others, saying that although they have undertaken their job with exemplary skill and ability for many years, at the age of 55 they have been told that they must take a qualification to continue to do what they have done day in, day out for the past 30 years. 
 The Bill requires someone to possess a licensing qualification as a precondition of having a personal licence.

Kim Howells: I have some information for the hon. Gentleman. That is the case only if the licensee has not inherited grandfather rights that enable him or her to continue a profession.

Mark Hoban: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I was about to turn my attention to grandfather rights. I hope that the draft regulations make it clear that grandfather rights apply, and that people working for licensing authorities do not focus on the possessor's licensing qualification as being the only way in which somebody can be qualified to run a pub. Can the Minister give some assurance about the nature of the regulations that will provide guidance for the relevant licensing authorities?
 I am also aware that people in the trade who have been involved in running bars—although not as personal licensees—may by virtue of their experience possess the qualifications to run a pub, and to have a personal licence. We might be in danger of setting out qualifications that lead to people being reliant on book learning rather than practical experience to gain the necessary skills to become a personal licensee. We should offer an alternative route to people who seek to pursue a career as a personal licensee, so that they can become one not only by possessing a piece of paper but by having hands-on practical experience of running a bar: that should stand them in good stead when they want to obtain a personal licence. My amendments are designed to probe the issue of relevant experience being preferable to paper qualifications as a criterion for the granting of a personal licence by the licensing authority.

Andrew Turner: I, too, am pleased to see you in the Chair again this afternoon, Mr. Benton. It was raining a moment ago, but it seems to have stopped now, so Committee members on the Opposition Benches may soon have the opportunity to enjoy the sun beaming down across our faces.

Kim Howells: As one who likes to get my bearings, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that for at least the next 12 hours the sun will not shine through those windows—if it does, we are in big trouble.

Andrew Turner: The Minister is obviously much more on the ball at a quarter to 3 in the morning than is appropriate—[Interruption.] I meant a quarter to 3 in the afternoon.
 I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), and I hope that when the Minister winds up this debate he will describe the nature of the prescription, which he is going to provide by regulation, that will enable a person to get away with not possessing a licensing qualification. 
 My amendment addresses the nature of the licensing qualification. The fact that I have tabled such an amendment does not mean that I think that a licensing qualification is necessary or appropriate. However, the Bill contains a qualification, so we have 
 to deal with that. It suggests that the qualification should be one that 
''the Secretary of State certifies is to be treated for the purposes of this section.''
 That is a quotation from subsection (8)(b). Subsection (9) says: 
'' 'accredited' means accredited by the Secretary of State''.
 What qualifications does the Secretary of State have to accredit qualifications? Many bodies in this country have the power to accredit qualifications, mostly under the Education Acts. Why does the Minister feel that in England or Wales it is more appropriate for the Secretary of State to start to move towards accrediting qualifications ab initio than to rely on qualifications that may already be available?

Kim Howells: Many accreditations are required throughout industry, and not all of them are recognised—or accredited—by a Government Department. Almost all the accrediting bodies work with the education authorities, as the hon. Gentleman implied in his question, to ensure that there is proper accreditation. They also work with sectoral training bodies and so forth, to ensure that those accreditations are the most relevant ones at any given time. I will try to address that question in the context of the Bill.
 In response to the hon. Member for Fareham, I should explain that the arrangements for rights in relation to personal licences are set out in part 3 of Schedule 8; he may care to look at them. He also asked about licensing qualifications. Licensing qualifications are not new. For years it has been the practice of many licensing justices to demand evidence of such a qualification before deciding whether an individual is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The Bill reflects that increasing practice by following the trend established by the licensing justices, and provides consistency. 
 Amendments Nos. 431 and 432 would amend the criteria to the effect that possession of ''relevant experience'', which may be defined by the Secretary of State by regulation, will be acceptable in lieu of an accredited licensing qualification. I hope that that helps the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to understand what I am getting at. 
 I shall explain why the Bill is drafted as it is, and why I must resist amendments Nos. 431 and 432. During the debate we have talked a lot about balance, and the Bill provides many safeguards for local residents and for the community at large. It removes many of the barriers of cost and bureaucracy that limit the opportunities for musicians to perform. At the same time, it clarifies the position for the hospitality and leisure industry. One of the most important elements of that clarification is the personal licence. 
 The system of personal licences that the Bill sets out replaces the current vague ''fit and proper person'' test with a set of open and transparent criteria in clause 118. One of those criteria is that the person must be in possession of an accredited licensing qualification, or must be of a prescribed description. The idea behind the licensing qualification is that it 
 provides a recognised standard against which people can be measured in a fair and accountable way. There cannot be much argument about that so I shall not dwell on it, but rather focus on the second half of subsection (2)(b), which refers to 
''a person of a prescribed description''.
 The Bill provides the option for the Secretary of State to describe by regulation specific classes of people who would not need to possess a licensing qualification to obtain a personal licence. Members of various organisations—admittance to which would already signify sufficient fitness to sell alcohol—would not have to obtain a licensing qualification in addition. The hon. Member for Fareham spoke about the difference between book learning and work experience. We certainly do not want someone with years of experience in a specialised trade being put out of work because they do not possess what the hon. Gentleman called a book-learned qualification.

Malcolm Moss: I hope that the Minister will go on to give us an indication of the type of person he is talking about. Can he confirm whether existing legislation covers persons of such a prescribed description?

Kim Howells: Yes, in the main it does. It is intended that the Secretary of State will prescribe, for example, the freemen of the vintners of the City of London, from whom the Bill removes the archaic and anomalous privilege of being able to sell wine without a licence in defined port and thoroughfare towns—many of which are situated in the constituencies of hon. Members here today, although not, alas, in my own.
 The difficulty with the amendments is that they would revert back to the ''fit and proper person'' test. Notwithstanding amendment No. 432, which would allow the Secretary of State to define ''relevant experience'', there are two major problems. The first is the burden that would be placed on the applicant to prove that he or she possessed the relevant experience. That might be difficult to prove. Would applicants have to acquire validated career histories and references from their employers, including payslips, P60s and affidavits? Compare that with the provision as drafted, with its reference to being a person ''of a prescribed description''. One either is or is not a person of a prescribed description; it is a matter of fact, not judgment. 
 Secondly—and while we are on the subject of judgment—who would decide whether after all the CVs and details had been sent in, the applicants measured up to the relevant experience test? I can think of no one but the licensing authority, and I suspect strongly that publicans up and down the country will be concerned at the prospect of a licensing authority poring over their backgrounds to decide whether they are fit to hold a licence to sell alcohol. 
 I understand the intention behind the amendments, but I do not think that they will do anything to reduce the burden on prospective licensees—quite the reverse, in fact. I remind the Committee that under the transitional arrangements set out in schedule 8, all those who are holders of a justice's on-licence on the first appointed day will qualify automatically for a 
 personal licence without the need for any accredited qualification. That is subject to police intervention in exceptional cases, such as when a case is outstanding against the individual concerned. In the light of what I have said, I hope that amendments Nos. 431 and 432 will not be pressed. 
 There is no need for the change proposed in amendment No. 416. That amendment would change the definition of ''accredited'' to read: ''accredited by the Secretary of State or under the Higher and Further Education Acts''. Having listened to the hon. Gentleman, I am convinced that the amendment was intended to refer to the designation or specification of institutions under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is a factor that the Secretary of State will take into account when considering the general accreditation of a licensing body or a qualification. 
 However, we do not believe that such designation or specification is by itself sufficient to ensure that personal licence holders have undergone the level of training required to deal with the special issues raised by the sale or supply of alcohol. There is one reason why: the 1992 Act is, obviously, not concerned with licensing the sale and supply of alcohol. Some qualifications awarded by institutions designated or specified under the Act may relate in some way to the sale and supply of alcohol, and I am sure that those of us with further education colleges in our constituencies have some idea of what those courses and qualifications are. 
 However, to ensure that a particular course fits the Bill, the Secretary of State would in many cases need to take advice from interested parties, including the industry, local authorities, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in England, and the Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales. That expert advice will not have been relevant to designation or specification under the 1992 Act. We will take into account designation or specification under the Act, but that is not sufficient by itself. I hope that amendment No. 416 will not be pressed.

Mark Hoban: I thank the Minister for his explanation of the principles underlying subsection (2)(b), but in one sense that explanation made me slightly more nervous. Let me set out why I am concerned. When I became a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants I had passed three years' worth of exams, but prior to admission, which was not simply based on passing those exams, I had to complete a period of professional experience. Also, someone in the firm who knew me well had to say whether I was a fit and proper person to become a chartered accountant. That process takes into consideration factors such as people's integrity, professional behaviour during their training contract and so on. That is quite a rigorous process, considering all the the exams, the professional experience and the ''fit and proper'' sign-off from someone already in the institute.
 My concern is that although someone can have ticked all the boxes—they might have a qualification, be 18 or over, not have forfeited a licence and not have been convicted of an offence—and so get a personal licence, nothing in those conditions says that that person will be a good licensee of a pub, or that, by nature of their behaviour, they will be aware of the issues that could face them if they had a personal licence for, say, a pub, a nightclub or other premises where regulated entertainment or the sale of alcohol could take place. 
 We are taking away the licensing committee's ability to exercise judgment about the people to whom it grants a personal licence; it will simply become a bureaucratic process by which, so long as a person fits the criteria in subsection (2), he will receive a personal licence not necessarily because of who he is, but because it is simply issued. That will be a rubber-stamping exercise by the licensing authority. Surely proper regard should be given to someone's experience. There is nothing wrong in requiring someone who applies for a personal licence to have references and so on.

Kim Howells: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that much of what he is discussing becomes part of the contractual arrangement between the personal licence holder—whether he or she is aged 18, 20, 24 or whatever—and the company for which he or she is to work?
 If a licensed premises is in a difficult situation, for whatever reason, those involved will make sure that the person whom they appoint will make a success of the business. They are hard-headed business people; they will not appoint someone who does not have enough experience to run the place properly. We can leave much of that to the industry. After all, it has been taking such action for a long time.

Mark Hoban: The Minister has made a persuasive point—but if we follow through the logic of his argument and consider the slightly mechanistic approach taken to being granted a personal licence, we could ask, ''Why have a personal licence at all?'' There will always be a contractual relationship between the person running the premises and the person who owns it. We have a process by which there is probably an obligation for both the company that owns the premises and the licensing authority to be comfortable about the fact that the person with the personal licence is equipped, both technically by qualifications and personally, to undertake the responsibility of being a personal licence holder. We are in danger of creating a process driven by the ticking of boxes, which does not take into account the personality, the experience, the background and the track record of the potential personal licence holder.
 I shall not push the matter to a vote; I just want to place on record our worry that we are in danger of setting up a procedure as a result of which people will place great confidence in the person with the licence, but in reality, so long as a person ticks the boxes, he will receive the licence. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 295, in
clause 118, page 64, line 33, leave out 'five' and insert 'three'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 291, in 
clause 118, page 64, line 38, leave out from 'meet' to 'subsection' and insert 'any conditions in'.
 Amendment No. 292, in 
clause 118, page 64, line 39, leave out subsections (4) to (7).
 Amendment No. 241, in 
clause 118, page 64, line 42, leave out 'its area' and insert 
 'the area where the applicant is ordinarily resident'.
 Amendment No. 245, in 
clause 118, page 65, line 1, leave out from 'Where' to end of line 4.
 Amendment No. 247, in 
clause 118, page 65, line 10, at end insert 
 'subject to such conditions as the authority thinks fit having regard to the licensing qualification possessed by the applicant'.
 Amendment No. 246, in 
clause 118, page 65, line 17, after 'so', insert 
 'or if it appears that the applicant fails to meet the condition in paragraph (d) of subsection (2) and it is not satisfied that the granting of the licence would not undermine the crime prevention objective'.
 Amendment No. 248, in 
clause 118, page 65, line 18, at end insert 
 'subject to such conditions as the authority thinks fit having regard to the licensing qualifications possessed by the applicant'.
 Amendment No. 250, in 
clause 119, page 65, line 37, leave out from beginning to second 'to' in line 39 and insert 
 'The relevant licensing authority must give notice of the application'.
 Amendment No. 249, in 
clause 119, page 65, line 40, leave out 'its area' and insert 
 'the area where the applicant is ordinarily resident'.
 Amendment No. 251, in 
clause 119, page 65, line 41, leave out from 'Where' to end of line 44.
 Amendment No. 252, in 
clause 119, page 66, line 4, leave out subsection (4).
 Amendment No. 254, in 
clause 119, page 66, line 7, at end insert 
 'subject to such conditions as the authority thinks fit having regard to the licensing qualifications possessed by the applicant'.
 Amendment No. 253, in 
clause 119, page 66, line 13, leave out from first 'it' to ', and' in line 14 and insert 
 'is not satisfied that the renewal of the personal licence would not undermine the crime prevention objective'.
 Amendment No. 255, in 
clause 119, page 66, line 15, at end insert 
 'subject to such conditions as the authority thinks fit having regard to the licensing qualifications possessed by the applicant.'.
 Amendment No. 256, in 
clause 120, page 66, line 22, leave out 'its area' and insert 
 'the area where the applicant is ordinarily resident'.
 Amendment No. 257, in 
clause 120, page 66, line 28, leave out 'its area' and insert 
 'the area where the applicant is ordinarily resident'.
 Amendment No. 258, in 
clause 122, page 67, line 11, leave out 'its area' and insert 
 'the area where the applicant is ordinarily resident'.
 Amendment No. 259, in 
clause 122, page 67, line 12, leave out from 'Where' to third 'the' in line 16.
 Amendment No. 261, in 
clause 123, page 67, line 43, at end insert 
 ', and the conditions subject to which it is granted'.
 Amendment No. 293, in 
clause 127, page 69, line 40, leave out from 'court' to end of line 42 and insert 'must— 
 (a) order the forfeiture of the licence, if the sentence given is one of imprisonment exceeding 30 months; or 
 (b) in all other cases, order the suspension of the licence for the duration of the rehabilitation, as defined in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (c.53).'.
 Amendment No. 296, in 
clause 132, page 72, line 40, at end insert— 
 '( ) Where, under section 123, details of relevant offences and foreign offences are contained in the licence, these must be removed by the relevant licensing authority at the request of the personal licence holder once they have become spent.'.
 Amendment No. 394, in 
clause 132, page 73, line 1, leave out '14' and insert '21'.

Malcolm Moss: This group is Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all, Mr. Benton. It is a complex series of amendments, and although I should like to explain them piece by piece, we may become confused when the Minister responds to them. I shall speak to them in the groupings that make sense to me—and, I hope, to the Committee. I shall begin with amendment No. 295, which is a probing amendment.
 We have been approached by people in the industry who have said that the five-year period within which someone who had forfeited their licence would be precluded from reapplying is too long. Thus the amendment suggests three years. An amendment tabled in the other place said that if the period was kept at five years, there could at least be a review after three. That suggestion was rejected. Surely the important thing is not that the licence was forfeited, although that is important, but the reasons for the forfeiture and the seriousness of the transgressions that led to it. There must be a gradation between serious offences and those that are not so serious—not life threatening, for example. The five-year period is a little harsh on people who might have forfeited their licence for minor misdemeanours. Those people should be able to get back into the trade within a reasonable time.

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman is going over ground that we have partly covered in debates on previous amendments. There is no compulsion for any personal licence holder to forfeit their licence; they could be forced to do that if they committed an offence, but apart from that they can continue to hold the licence. They should surely weigh up and balance
 in their own minds whether to forfeit a licence or hold on to it in case they want to return to the industry.

Malcolm Moss: I hear what the Minister says: it would be up to individuals to balance things. However, perhaps he will reveal why the Government decided on the five-year period, rather than any other. I said at the start that the amendment was intended to probe the clause.
 Amendments Nos. 291 and 292 pertain to clause 118, and amendment No. 293, which is consequential on those, relates to clause 127. They were suggested by the Association of Chief Police Officers, although perhaps more informally than formally, and they express police concerns about the implications of the issuing of personal licences and police involvement with the applications. 
 Amendments Nos. 291 and 292 would remove the discretion of the licensing authority to grant a personal licence if the applicant had an unspent conviction for a relevant offence; in fact, under the amended subsection (3) it would have to reject the application. That would give many advantages. First, if the element of discretion were removed, the administration would be simpler and the licensing authority would either grant or reject the application. Secondly, the need for the police to lodge objections, and for the authority to hold hearings, could be removed. Thirdly, it would be more straightforward for the applicants; they would know where they stood and the Bill would make it clearer what would happen if they did not measure up to the requirements in subsection (2). 
 We believe—as do the police—that that would be a fair system. The amendments would provide a fairer approach than what currently appears in the Bill. A person is only effectively disqualified from obtaining a personal licence while the conviction is unspent, as the rehabilitation period—that is, the time that the conviction is unspent—is related to the sentence that was passed by the court, which in theory is directly related to the seriousness of the offence originally committed. We hope that the worst offenders remain disqualified for longer periods. 
 The amendments would not constitute a bar to employment for such people, just a bar to their obtaining the responsible position of personal licence holder. We are not saying that they could not have a job in the industry—working behind a bar, for example—but they could not be personal licence holders because of their personal situation. 
 Amendment No. 293 is the consequential amendment to clause 127, and follows on from earlier amendments. If an applicant is convicted of an offence that would have disqualified him from receiving a personal licence in the first place, he should lose his licence if he already holds one. The amendment would remove the court's discretion to 
''order the forfeiture of the licence'',
 and require it to suspend the licence for the duration of the rehabilitation period—or, if the sentence exceeds 30 months, to order its forfeiture. We know that such convictions are never spent. 
 Amendments Nos. 241, 249, 256, 257 and 258 deal with the area within which the applicant lives, and the area where the licensing authority has jurisdiction over him. The amendments deal with whether the relevant licensing authority for a personal licence should be the authority that originally issued the licence regardless of whether the licensee has moved away from that original authority, as is currently proposed in the Bill. That could lead to problems. 
 The licensee may have moved to the other end of the country, and all the personal information will be kept with the original licensing authority. Therefore, when the licence needs to be reviewed, the original authority must process the application, despite the fact that the applicant no longer lives within its area. It makes much more sense that the relevant authority for the personal licence should move with the licensee, as his area of residency changes. The amendment would leave out the words ''its area'' and insert 
''the area where the applicant is ordinarily resident''.
 The amendments would also make life easier for local police authorities. If an applicant or licensee seeks the granting or renewal of a licence, he should consult the relevant police force in the area where he resides. Under the Government's proposals, the individual will refer to the police force in the area that originally granted the personal license, which may not know the current character or situation of that individual. That could impose a large bureaucratic burden on police forces throughout the country, as they pursue inquiries regarding an individual who now resides at the other end of the country. 
 Under the current provisions, large pub companies may seek to register all their licences under the same authority. That could mean moving those individuals into a local authority area for a limited period, in order to apply for personal licences from that authority. Consequentially, certain local authorities would be issuing a number of licences disproportionate to the number of licensed premises in their region, thus upping the excess cost of that practice.

Kim Howells: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that a company that owns 300 or 400 pubs would contemplate moving its personal licence holders temporarily to a particular part of the country while they registered? What would be the point of that?

Malcolm Moss: The Minister has homed in on a small mistake in my presentation. I do not mean that the company would physically move everyone, but it might submit all its people's applications to a particular licensing authority, which would create a big burden for that authority.
 The amendments are particularly pertinent in light of the Government's reluctance to commit itself to a central licensing authority. We have now been told that a central register will be introduced, but we have yet to see the detail. Not only does that lack of commitment leave the law open to abuse from unscrupulous individuals seeking to cheat the system, it means much more administration and bureaucracy for local authorities. 
 Amendments Nos. 251 to 253, which would affect clause 119, are consequential on amendment No. 245 to clause 118. The Opposition are concerned that if an applicant satisfies all the conditions of clause 118—that he is 18 or over, he possesses the licensing qualification and he has not been convicted of any relevant or foreign offence—the licensing authority must grant an individual licence, regardless of the opinion of the chief officer of police of the area, even if that chief officer believes that granting the application would undermine the crime prevention objectives. In that case, it is right that the relevant licensing authority should listen to and take account of the views of the police; it is free to reject those views, but it should be required to take heed of the recommendations of the chief officer before making a decision. 
 Amendments Nos. 247 and 248, with amendments Nos. 254, 255 and 261, would amend clauses 118, 119 and 123. For the purposes of granting a personal licence, the Bill fails to recognise the wide range of possible ways of selling alcohol. For example, selling alcohol from a small convenience shop is different from selling it from a nightclub with a capacity of hundreds of people, where there might be different bars and numerous employees for the licence holder to oversee. 
 The amendments attempt to achieve some semblance of recognition of the nature of where and how the personal licensee will be supplying and selling alcohol, by ensuring that the local licensing authorities attach conditions to the personal licences issued. That makes sense in the light of the varying responsibilities associated with selling alcohol; some premises will require the licence holder or manager to have more qualifications or training to cope with the tasks afforded by their position. 
 Amendment No. 246 relates to clause 118, and amendment No. 250, which is consequential, relates to clause 119. They deal with the application for a personal licence by an individual with a conviction for a serious offence. As the qualifications that must be met to obtain a personal licence are already listed in clause 118, we would like to highlight again the fact that if all those conditions are satisfied the licensing authority is obliged to accept the licence application, regardless of the opinion of the police, even when that opinion is that granting the application would undermine the crime prevention objectives. If a police officer expresses objections to the granting of a licence, it is imperative that that is taken into account by the licensing authority before a decision is reached, regardless of whether the applicant satisfies all the criteria outlined in clause 118. 
 Amendment No. 246 deals with a change in the burden of proof where the applicant for, or holder of, a personal licence is convicted of a so-called ''relevant offence''. The burden of proof ought to be on the applicant to satisfy the relevant authority that if it granted their application, or chose not to revoke their existing licence, the crime prevention objectives would not be jeopardised. The Bill merely provides that the police must be satisfied that the granting of the application, or failure to revoke the licence, will not 
 undermine the crime prevention objectives; it should make the applicant accept the burden of convincing the police and the authorities that the application will not do that. 
 Although the rehabilitation of convicted criminals can be entirely successful, that is not always the case. Any conviction carrying a sentence of more than 30 months is necessarily a serious offence, and that should be recognised in the Bill. 
 Amendments Nos. 296 and 394 relate to clause 132. The Bill contains no provision for what we might call ''endorsements'' to be removed from the personal licence. The industry has approached us in an effort to get the Government to move on that. An analogy can be drawn with the driving licence and the endorsements that go on that over a period; at some point in time they can be wiped clear. It has been put to us that any endorsements on a licence ought to be removed after about three years, and we are now putting that case to the Minister. That is the purpose of amendment No. 296.

Kim Howells: This is a very large group of amendments: I will not necessarily follow the order in which the hon. Gentleman has spoken to them, but I will try to answer all the questions that have been raised. I will deal first with the amendments that address the issue of relevant offences and foreign offences
 The hon. Gentleman constructed a scenario in which a pub company might seek to register all its personal licence holders—or at least a tranche of them—in a particular local authority area. Applications for personal licences must be made to the licensing authority for the area in which the applicants are ordinarily resident. It would not be open to pub companies to apply en masse to one licensing authority for the personal licences of employees. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman a degree of comfort on that point, but no doubt we will come back to it. 
 Amendments Nos. 291, 292, 245, 246, 250, 251 and 293 deal with relevant offences and foreign offences—

Mark Field: One could construct a scenario in which all or most of the employees of a pub chain were deemed to be based at head office, wherever that might be—in Burton, say, or some other brewing town, or even in a small village in the middle of nowhere—so that all the personal licences had to be granted by the nearest licensing authority, which might be fairly small. That is our concern. Such an arrangement would not in any way be seen as an attempt to bypass the rules; indeed, it might be a logical thing to do. If the head office were deemed to be the ordinary place of business for all the employees, how would that affect the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire?

Kim Howells: I must say that I have not heard of any company coming up with that scenario—but it is fair enough for the hon. Gentleman to suggest it. However,
 personal licence holders are not like ships, which may be licensed in, say, Liberia; they will generally be licensed in the area in which they work, and where the licensed premises are. In all the briefings and all the lobbying that I have heard, no organisation has put the hon. Gentleman's idea forward as a realistic scenario. Clearly, if he believes that it is a distinct possibility, he is right to raise it; it is just that I cannot see it happening. If he comes to me with stronger evidence that it is likely to happen, I will try to take the idea seriously. Just to reinforce the point, I must add that the provision refers to the place where applicants are ordinarily resident, not to where they are based. They must be habitually resident, for several purposes, in one place, from which they may apply.
 Amendment No. 291 would require the licensing authority to refuse to grant a personal licence if the person had been convicted of a relevant or foreign offence as defined in the Bill. Read in conjunction with an unamended clause 112, that would continue to exclude any conviction if it were spent for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. However, that does not mean that we can forget the issue of rehabilitation, because offences that lead to prison sentences of 30 months or more can never become spent under the 1974 Act. Under amendment No. 291, hon. Members are arguing that for the purposes of the Bill, that arrangement should apply even to lesser convictions. Amendment No. 292 appears to be consequential, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire told us. 
 Hon. Members' starting point would be to remove any discretion on the part of the licensing authority to recognise rehabilitation as the years go by. A conviction for a relevant or foreign offence would mean automatic refusal of an application for the grant of a personal licence for the remainder of the life of the person concerned. Such an individual will be banned for life from ever having the authority to sell alcohol by retail. In addition, amendment No. 293 proposes that, on a personal licence holder's conviction for a relevant or foreign offence, and his being sentenced to imprisonment for 30 months or more, the courts would be obliged to declare the licence forfeit. 
 What kind of message does that send out about rehabilitation? We discussed the matter earlier. We strongly question whether such a provision could sensibly be regarded as a proportionate approach, and it would certainly give rise to human rights questions. We also have serious difficulty with the idea that the sentencing court should have no discretion in deciding whether the notice should be forfeit. No doubt in many cases the court will decide that it should be; still, each case should be judged on its merits, together with the circumstances that gave rise to the new offence. 
 We should not be attempting to settle arguments about mandatory and discretionary sentencing in a Bill focused on licensing. We have gone a long way down the road of ensuring that the public are properly protected by accepting amendments in another place that removed the thresholds over which the police needed to be notified of the existence of the offences 
 concerned. Indeed, it was after discussions with the police, especially in Manchester, that I decided that the limits set were too high. They were difficult to square with sentencing policy, and I was worried that as a consequence people who may have received shorter sentences for very serious crimes might somehow escape the sort of examination required by the licensing authority and by the police. Any convictions for offences listed in schedule 4 were thereby caught, not just those that had resulted in a prison sentence of 30 months or more. However, the amendments go too far, and we cannot support them. 
 Amendment No. 293 would also require the courts to suspend a licence for the period of rehabilitation laid down in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, when the sentence was for less than 30 months of imprisonment. Again, that cuts across the courts' proper discretion. It is for the courts to make decisions on the individual merits of each case. That is why we have magistrates and judges, and we should let them do their job.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister mentioned that he had had discussions with police in Manchester, and my understanding is that the Association of Chief Police Officers has centralised operations with one officer there, who has staff working for him. If I say to the Minister that the amendments were suggested to us by the same source, we shall be back to the age-old problem of people saying different things to different sides. The police have expressed concern, but the argument may hinge on the ''fit and proper person'' test that they consider gives them strength. They feel that the Bill undermines their ability to make representations about people whom they do not believe should have personal licences.

Kim Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for being candid about the amendments and their source. I do not want to repeat myself, and I am sure that the Committee does not want me to, but when one is briefed by various organisations, sometimes they will brief harder if they think that there may be an opportunity to make life easier for them—or, as they see it, to make them more effective in looking after the public. I can only give the hon. Gentleman an idea of the briefing that my officials and I have received during many hours of discussion with the police on those issues.
 The police may well be lobbying hard, but that does not mean that I have to agree with them. This is a matter of balance. We have to balance people's right to be judged later in life after they have committed a series of offences, or a single offence that might be serious or not so serious. The courts and the licensing authority must be given the discretion to judge whether that person should be granted a personal licence. The police will have ample opportunity to comment on an individual's application for a personal licence in those circumstances. 
 As the hon. Gentleman has explained to us, amendment No. 245 is an attempt to return to the old subjective ''fit and proper person'' test that governs the existing system. That would mean that innuendo and rumour could play a part in the proceedings—although I am not saying for one moment that that 
 would determine the decision of the licensing authority. I do not believe that innuendo and rumour can be a proper part of a modern system. An individual in this country is innocent of a crime until proven guilty in a court of law: that is a fundamental protection for all citizens. 
 Amendment No. 245 would open the way to a form of punishment or sanction without any proper conviction or due process. It is wrong. It would also meddle with people's right to have the opportunity to seek gainful employment in one sector—the leisure and hospitality sector—in a way that is not reflected, as far as I am aware, in any other sector of industry. 
 Amendment No. 251 follows a similar line in the case of applications for the renewal of a licence. Amendment No. 246 would duplicate the effect of amendment No. 291, and follows the theme that we have discussed. 
 The second identified theme is the idea that conditions should be attached to personal licences. Amendments Nos. 247, 248, 254, 255 and 261 pursue a course that is alien to the Bill, which is based on the premise that the sale of alcohol, a legal drug, should take place only under the authority of people who have achieved a special status and are permitted to make such sales. It does not matter where the alcohol is sold; its impact on the community as a drug is unchanged by circumstance. Any individual selling alcohol, whether in a supermarket, pub, theatre or nightclub, must understand the law concerning such sales and their social impact—on young people, for example. The licensing qualification will test just that. It will not test business competency—that is not a matter for licensing law. 
 The attachment of conditions to personal licences is alien to the Bill and reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the split licensing approach; it also represents fear of change. We cannot support that. Conditions will be applied to premises licenses through the premises licence holder, ensuring that the carrying on of licensable activities is in accordance with the relevant provisions. Such conditions will often follow representations by responsible authorities—the police, the fire brigade, and the environmental health and planning departments of the local authority—and interested parties, such as local residents. 
 The third theme in the group promotes the idea that the police force of the area where the individual is ordinarily resident should be consulted prior to the issue or renewal of a personal licence. Amendments Nos. 241, 249, 256, 257 and 258 would require the licensing authority dealing with an application for the granting or renewal of a personal licence to consult the police in the area where the individual was ordinarily resident, rather than its own police force—if those were different. 
 The amendments would cause some technical problems. Under clause 115, as amended by the Committee, if an individual is living in England and Wales, the police forces must be one and the same. The amendments would place an obligation on licensing authorities that they are incapable of fulfilling if the 
 individual lives outside England and Wales. On those grounds alone the amendments cannot be accepted. 
 Let me turn to the general thrust of the proposal. As we have discussed at some length, the Bill will not initially rely on the existence of a central licensing database, which could take time to bring into being. Each personal licence holder must have a home licensing authority to which all records concerning him over the years are sent. That would allow a single, coherent record about the individual to be developed and held in one place. Any enforcing agency would have just one place to look and inquire when it needed details. The Bill makes that possible, with or without a central licensing database.

Andrew Turner: Would the Minister speculate on why someone who is ordinarily resident outside England and Wales might apply for a personal licence to a licensing authority in England or Wales?

Kim Howells: Because the Bill covers England and Wales only and no other part of the country. It pertains to what happens here, not to what happens in Scotland or Northern Ireland. That is why the strictures were placed in the Bill.

Andrew Turner: The Minister has not taken my point.

Kim Howells: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is talking about a Scot working across the border.

Andrew Turner: The Minister said that a licensing authority would find it impossible to implement the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire on an applicant who is ordinarily resident outside England or Wales; I assume that that is because they would be unable to contact the police authority in that area.

Kim Howells: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I see what he means. I am sure that such arrangements could be made. I assume that he means that someone might live in Scotland or Northern Ireland; they may live in the Pas de Calais, or the Nord, in France and come through the tunnel every day—indeed, they may live in the Isle of Man, or Jersey. He must have a notion about where that person might live.

Andrew Turner: It was the Minister who mentioned it.

Kim Howells: I am talking about England and Wales, which is what the proposed legislation is about. It would not make sense for a whole series of licensing authorities to maintain such details about all personal licence holders, particularly those who are not designated premises supervisors. It follows that theme to give to the police force of the home licensing area the responsibility for making objections about such individuals. They can only object in relation to a matter of fact—the existence of a conviction for a relevant offence or foreign offence as defined in the Bill.
 If the police are applying consistent standards, what difference does it make on renewal of the licence that one force or another makes this judgement? The conviction is a matter of public record that could be checked by the force in question. Indeed, if the police had in mind bringing into the equation other information about the individual, they would be going beyond what is established in the Bill. In other 
 words, that is a connection to the second theme in this group that I mentioned earlier. 
 I now want to discuss the three amendments in the group that fall outside the three themes that I have discussed so far. Amendment No. 295 would reduce the period for which an individual would be prevented from obtaining a personal licence because of a forfeiture of a previous personal licence from five years to three years. I completely understand why the industry would favour that less severe constraint, but I think that it is a question of balance. 
 The forfeiture of a personal licence is a significant act undertaken by the courts on sentencing an individual after assessing the individual merits of a case. It will not be the mandatory act that Opposition Members have proposed—at least, it will not be if we do not accept their amendments. It will, therefore, be an important decision carrying appropriate respect and weight. In addition, the courts' sentencing powers and their impact must serve as a deterrent to those who might otherwise lightly transgress the licensing laws that the Bill will establish. The Committee should note that offences committed under the Bill will become relevant offences. Against that background, I cannot accept that a reduction from five to three years would be appropriate.

Malcolm Moss: I understand the Minister's argument about balance—that goes without saying in the context of the whole Bill—but he has not really made the case as to why the circumstances are significantly changed by the two-year difference between the five years in the Bill and the three in our amendment.

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman and I have had several conversations about those arbitrary figures, as I suppose we may call them. We have arrived at five years after discussing the matters with stakeholders, and we think that that is an appropriate length of time. The hon. Gentleman, possibly reflecting the lobbying of one part of the industry, seems to think that three years would be better. I am afraid that there is no science that determines the matter, but I would have to disagree with him. Five years offers a better balance than three. I have no better argument to make than that.
 Amendment No. 252 would remove the important clarification contained in clause 119 that when determining an application for renewal of a personal licence, it is not relevant whether a conviction for a relevant or foreign offence took place before or after a personal licence was last issued or renewed. That is an important safety net because offences that had occurred prior to the issue or last renewal may only have come to light when a renewal is being considered. The Bill ensures that all offences can properly be considered and none escape scrutiny. The amendment would remove the safety net and could only produce confusion and argument as to whether such convictions could be considered or not. 
 Amendment No. 253 would lower the test or standard for refusing to renew a personal licence 
 following the hearing of a police objection to a renewal. The licensing authority would merely have to be satisfied that removal would undermine the crime prevention objective rather than—as the Bill currently requires—having to consider it necessary for the promotion of the crime prevention objective to refuse to renew it. 
 The Committee should remember that the individual affected has already been sentenced and convicted by a court for the relevant offence. The Bill then imposes a further constraint on his life. It would potentially restrict his right to engage in a legitimate business activity: the sale of alcohol. In terms of human rights, such a restriction should occur only if it is proportionate and necessary in the public interest. It is not therefore appropriate to lower this test and I must resist this amendment. 
 Under clause 112, a conviction for a relevant offence or a foreign equivalent must be disregarded if it is spent—or should be treated as spent—under the terms of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. Let us suppose that a personal licence holder is convicted of a relevant offence soon after receiving his licence and that there are no police objections to his keeping the licence. The offence is not so serious that it results in a sentence that can never be spent. In due course, the conviction becomes spent, so it follows that, when the licence holder comes to renew the licence, the authority must disregard the conviction. 
 What useful purpose would be served by requiring the authority to amend the licence in the meantime? The authority's records will show a sequence of events, and rightly so. Amendment of the licence will not have any bearing on the renewal decision and, as I have explained, clause 112 requires spent convictions to be disregarded. Of course, the police will also be aware of the previous convictions of personal licence holders, whether or not spent. It is an important consideration that convictions are not excised from police records when they become spent. 
 Furthermore, a personal licence has no general use as an identifying document. It is not like a driving licence, which a holder may have to produce in a wide range of circumstances, including at banks and post offices. Under clause 133, the licence holder has to produce the personal licence only to police officers and authorised persons. By virtue of clause 126, the licence holder is also under a duty to produce or notify it to a court when charged with a relevant offence. As I have explained, the licence will not carry information about its holder that it would not otherwise be entitled to have. For those reasons, we do not support the change proposed under amendment No. 296. 
 Amendment No. 394 would provide that a personal licence holder, who was required to produce his licence to the licensing authority for it to be updated, would have 21 days to do so rather than 14. There is no need to provide a personal licence holder with more than two weeks to provide his licence to the licensing authority to have it updated. In some cases, of course, the reason for the updating will be perfectly innocent, such as the renewal of the licence, but in other cases the licence holder will have been convicted of a 
 relevant offence and his licence might have been suspended or forfeited. 
 In those situations, a reasonable time should be provided for production, but that must be balanced against the need for the licence to be as up to date as possible to ensure that those who are charged with enforcing the system have up-to-date information available to them. The amendment would simply extend the time during which an unscrupulous licence holder might be able to keep working following conviction for a relevant offence, but it would provide no real help for the majority of honest licence holders who are capable of producing their licences with 14 days, when necessary. 
 I must resist all the amendments. I hope that I have set out fully why each of the identified themes are unacceptable to us and that hon. Members will see fit to withdraw them.

Andrew Turner: The problem with the clause, which justifies many of the amendments, is that the Government are straining at the gnat while swallowing the camel. They have taken a highly mechanistic approach to the provision of licences, which reduces the very discretion that should lie with the licensing authority on one hand and with those who advise the licensing authority on the other. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire argued earlier, surely it must be a fact that someone who is using a personal licence for the purpose of selling drinks occasionally in a village hall is undertaking an entirely different activity from someone who is possibly doing so voluntarily.

Kim Howells: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about temporary events or the clauses that refer to the granting of a personal licence to sell alcohol?

Andrew Turner: I confirm that I am talking about those clauses that enable someone to have a licence to sell alcohol. The problem is, however, the standard nature of the licence, which is unrelated to the type of environment within which the alcohol will be sold. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire mentioned that when he spoke to the amendments. As I said, someone who voluntarily supervises the sale of alcohol at half a dozen or 20 events a year in a village hall and is, perhaps, unremunerated for doing so is undertaking an entirely different activity from the manager of a massive nightclub—regardless of whether it is situated in my hon. Friend's constituency or the Minister's—who is, perhaps, paid handsomely for the experience that they bring to that job, and who might sell thousands, or even tens of thousands, of units of alcohol in one evening. The Bill fails to address that difference. [Interruption.]
 The Minister may groan but the Bill is highly mechanistic, and in responding to some of my hon. Friends' amendments I fear that he has been even more mechanistic. He has talked almost of an entitlement, and he has referred to human rights on numerous occasions. I conclude from that that he believes that people are entitled to be granted a licence 
 unless specific mechanical objections to that can be raised. 
 I do not greatly object to the principle that people should be free to do anything they like in society, unless it impacts dangerously or dramatically on their fellow citizens. However, the Minister's approach with regard to the Bill is not that people should be entitled to do what they like but that if the local authority uses, or can be persuaded to use, common sense, people might be able to get away with morris dancing on the village green without serving even a temporary notice. That is not an approach of freedom: it is one that says, ''We will allow you an escape route to undertake this activity if you really press for it,'' in the manner that my hon. Friends and I have done—and as have the morris dancing industry and others, in the past. 
 The Minister is arguing on one hand that this is a matter of entitlement, and on the other that people must jump through dozens of hoops to achieve the nirvana of entitlement, even if they only intend to sell drinks in a village hall. That is why the legislation is disproportionate. 
 My hon. Friends' amendments attempt to finesse that by allowing—for example—a local authority to grant a licence with conditions. That is a sensible proposition. The people who might be granted such licences are not training to be general practitioners, and they do not need their level of knowledge of the impact of alcohol on young people in order to know that it is unlawful to sell alcohol to them. One does not have to be a paediatrician to realise that if someone who is patently under the age at which it is legal to sell alcohol to people tries to purchase alcohol, it would be inadvisable to sell it to them: one has to be a normal, law-abiding citizen who is doing their best to undertake their responsibilities, having due regard to the law. 
 The Minister criticised the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire that the licensing authority should give notice to the chief officer of police for the area in which the applicant is normally resident. I recognise that the Minister is in a bit of hole on that because of the system that he has set up. A person who attends the Isle of Wight school of food and wine to train to be a licensee could get his first job on the Isle of Wight, so he might apply for his personal licence where he is training at the end of the training course—or he might do that because the school helps him to apply for it, as he is being trained there. He achieves his personal licence, which is excellent. He then looks for a job, and perhaps he will never use his personal licence in the area that the licence was granted. He may go off to look for jobs elsewhere, and find a job in South Dorset, in North Devon or, if he is especially unlucky, in North Durham. That is what will happen, and for evermore the Isle of Wight council will be responsible for issuing the licence, and consequently the Hampshire constabulary will be the ''home constabulary'' to whom the Isle of Wight turns to find out about a chap who has not lived on the island since the age of 21, although he might have been undertaking licensable activities for 40 years. That will be the consequence of the Bill some 40 years hence. 
 It is patently absurd to set up a paper chase around the country whereby the Isle of Wight is the responsible authority for people who, perhaps at their loss, do not visit the Isle of Wight as frequently as the Minister. It is even more absurd that they must go not to the police force that covers the area in which they are ordinarily resident, but to the police who cover the area in which they were resident when they first acquired the personal licence. That is bonkers.

Kim Howells: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has considered some of the implications of what he is saying. Is he arguing that when an individual licence holder moves from one part of the country to another—perhaps he works for a big pub chain that has asked him to take over a new premises elsewhere—the paperwork held by the authority with which he registered should move with him to the new authority? That will create a paper chase that makes the scenario of which he talks look like small meat indeed. The hon. Gentleman should think about what he is saying, because the implications are incredibly unwieldy and bureaucratic.

Andrew Turner: I thought that the Minister was going to set up an electronic system for access to an information database.

Kim Howells: A database is being set up, and I have already informed the Committee of a seminar on Friday, which will be the first of a series of discussions about how we do that. The database will collect information no matter where it is in the country. We will not have to move files. A police or licensing authority will be able to access information immediately, and it will easily be replenished if a change takes place as a consequence of action taken against or by the licensee. The hon. Gentleman is painting a spurious scenario, and he knows it.

Andrew Turner: I certainly do not know it, or I would not have painted it.
 Let us forget about the licensing authority—I realise that we have passed clause 110, and that there is nothing we can do about the licensing authority at this stage. We can do something about the police authority, however, and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire proposed an alternative. The police authority in whose area someone is living is far more likely to have relevant information about an applicant than the police authority for the place where the applicant happened to live when they first obtained a personal licence. That is why my hon. Friend's amendment is sensible, and so overwhelmingly so that I am surprised that the Government find it so difficult to accept. 
 It is because the police do not act mechanistically, because policing is an intelligence-led business and because the police tend to find out things that might not necessarily end up with a conviction in a court of law that it is so important that the police have the authority to present information to the licensing authority, even if it is 500 miles away. The licensing authority is then able to exercise a measure of discretion in the granting of licences. 
 As the Minister has said, someone who is granted a licence has—I quote—''achieved a special status''. He has achieved the status of being trusted to sell alcohol to a large or small number of people in any part of England and Wales. It is not disproportionate or unfair—and it is certainly not an infringement of their human rights—for the police to bring forward such evidence as they have about their good character, and whether they are a fit and proper person, instead of relying on a mechanistic series of tick boxes; that seems to be the way that the Minister has framed the clause. 
 I can see that we shall not get very far in advancing this argument.

Jim Knight: No.

Andrew Turner: Hon. Members say no and suggest that I sit down. I have no intention of doing that.

Kim Howells: You cannot sit down.

Andrew Turner: The Minister will be pleased to know that I will eventually sit down.
 The problem is the shape of this set of clauses, and the fact that the police are not trusted to do their job. They are required to tick boxes rather than to do their job, and that is wholly unsatisfactory. I am not surprised that the police have pressed for more rights in this matter, and I am very sorry that the Government are unable to offer them the recognition that they should have for the trustworthy and sensitive way in which they conduct themselves to enable us to be safer.

Malcolm Moss: We have had a good debate on this complex list of amendments and I commend the Minister for making a good fist of the themes and for his responses to the thrust behind the amendments, some of which seem to conflict with others. The debate has been an attempt to flush out from the Government their reasons for the way in which they set out this grant application.
 I accept the argument that we do not want to add to the burden of bureaucracy and the conditions attaching to licences. The aim of the amendments, particularly amendments Nos. 247, 248 and 246, is not to add to that, but to give some flexibility to what my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has described as a mechanistic system. 
 The key amendments are those that we have tabled on behalf of the police. At this juncture it would be sensible for the Government to go back to the source that I have been talking to, and ask: ''Have you had the opportunity to discuss these matters? Are you satisfied with what we have discussed so far? What are your concerns? Is there anything that we should take on board before Report?'' It is obvious to me that the Bill does not fulfil the requirements of the police who have to administer part of it. If it makes life more difficult for them, we should take that on board. 
 The Minister is right to say that it is all a matter of balance. Of course we should not just go down the road of what the police want; we accept that there are other issues to take on board. But the police are still expressing concerns about the types of individual who will be presenting themselves for personal licence 
 applications. I am sure that their concerns stem from the removal of the ''fit and proper person'' definition. The Minister alluded to its being loose and difficult to tie down, but at least the police are familiar and comfortable with it, and it means that they can intervene when they have some evidence against someone whom they believe not to be an appropriate and proper person, who has a personal licence at the moment, but would not under the current legislation. 
 The Minister should make contact again with that section of the police and test out why they are still expressing concerns, but I concede that any lobby group will push all the way for its vested interest. 
 However, we are talking about striking a balance in the Bill between the rights of people to enjoy drinking and the ambience that goes with it, and the rights of those living in the localities in which that takes place. There is also the need, stressed repeatedly in the licensing objectives, to ensure that there is no disorder, nuisance or even crime attached to the activities that we are debating. However, we would need to think about the matter again if the police still thought that there was a chance that inappropriate people would slip through the net because of the Government's attempt to be not just flexible but ameliorative towards certain individuals. 
 I am happy to withdraw the amendment. We have tested the Government on the clause and other clauses relevant to it, but I urge the Government to make further contact with the police and talk the matter through to ensure that the police believe that they have a workable system that they can police adequately and properly. That, of course, is the intention of the Bill in any event. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Hoban: I have a question on applications for personal licences. It occurred to me during the preceding discussion on the amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. The Minister has said two or three times that a person applies for a personal licence if he is ordinarily resident in the area covered by the relevant licensing authority. If someone lives in Scotland, in the Borders, and works in England, is he precluded from getting a job that requires the holder to have a personal licence?

Kim Howells: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that, because I scribbled down some questions and got answers to them myself. A person might live in Scotland but work in Newcastle or Carlisle, and could travel there every day. If they did not possess a personal licence and wanted one, they could apply for one to any English or Welsh authority. If they already were a licensee, they would enjoy those grandfather rights that we spoke about earlier. However, they could not apply for a personal licence in Scotland. Nor can the authorities ask the Scottish police about the kinds of records that we have been discussing, because
 the Scottish police would not have knowledge of the law that obtains in England and Wales—well, they might know about it, but they would not have the expertise or the processes to deal with it.

Mark Hoban: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I should like to push him a little on the final part of his answer about seeking information from Scottish police forces. There is a weakness there; if someone is ordinarily resident in England or Wales, the licensing authority can apply to the appropriate police force for information about that person, but if someone is living in Scotland and applying for a personal licence in England, there is no way that the relevant licensing authority can apply to the Scottish police for that information.

Kim Howells: There is nothing to stop the police anywhere in Britain contacting the Scottish police about background information on criminal convictions, and so on, if they felt that that was necessary—no less than if they applied to any country. The Bill deals with other countries outside the United Kingdom by referring to foreign crimes or convictions. There would be nothing to stop one police force contacting another elsewhere, but the individual would not be registered as a personal licence holder elsewhere, so that would not apply in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 119 and 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 121 - Duty to notify licensing authority of convictions during application period

Amendment made: No. 28, in 
clause 121, page 66, line 38, leave out 'Central Licensing Authority' and insert 
 'authority to which the application is made'.—[Dr. Howells.]
 Clause 121, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 122 to 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 126 - Duty to notify court of personal licence

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 392, in
clause 126, page 68, line 38, leave out from 'must,' to end of line 39 and insert 
 'within one week of being charged'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 393, in 
clause 126, page 69, line 1, leave out 'court' and insert 
 'magistrates' court which is to hear that offence'.

Malcolm Moss: There is a slight problem with amendment No. 392: someone anticipated that the word ''changed'' should read ''charged''. There was perhaps a misprint or some illegibility in our communication to the usual channels, which was not as good as it should have been.
 The amendments deal with the personal licence holder being convicted of a relevant offence and the requirements on them subsequent to that conviction. Amendment No. 392, which refers to subsection (1), says that his licence should be sent to the relevant court 
''within one week of being charged'',
 rather than 
''after his first appearance in a magistrates' court in connection with that offence'',
 as in subsection (2). The relevant court is dealt with in amendment No. 393—a consequential amendment—that defines the court as the 
''magistrates' court which is to hear that offence''.
 That would be the same magistrates court that sent out the various particulars. 
 If there is information on a personal licence that helps the court to arrive at its decisions, the sooner it is obtained the better. It should be obtained well in advance, rather than on the morning or the day before the personal licence holder comes to court, so that it can be scrutinised and used appropriately during the court appearance. It would be more sensible to do that than to leave it until the eleventh hour. I am sure that people might attend having forgotten their licence, so it makes sense for them to be given notice to send it in beforehand.

Kim Howells: A personal licence holder charged with a relevant offence is required to notify the court that he holds such a licence, because if he is convicted of a relevant offence the court may, pursuant to clause 127, order the forfeiture or suspension of the licence. Under clause 129(2), the court must notify the relevant licensing authority of that conviction. If clause 129(1) does not apply or the personal licence holder is convicted of a foreign offence, the personal licence holder is required to notify the licensing authority himself, or he commits a separate offence under clause 130.
 For the most part, therefore, the point at which it is relevant for the court to consider the fact that an individual is a personal licence holder is when, after conviction, the court comes to consider whether to order forfeiture or suspension of the licence. There will also be cases in which the fact that an individual is a personal licence holder is relevant to the offence itself. However, in those cases, the prosecution will be aware of that fact, and will make it known to the court at the appropriate time. It is therefore unnecessary for the personal licence holder to produce his licence to the court prior to the time that he appears in court. I hope that, with those reassurances, the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Clause 126 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 127 to 133 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 134 - Unauthorised licensable activities

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 441, in
clause 134, page 73, line 29, at beginning insert 
 'Save as provided in subsection (2A),'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 434, in 
clause 134, page 73, line 34, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
 No. 442, in 
clause 134, page 74, line 5, at end insert— 
 '(2A) No offence shall be committed where the licensable activity is of minimal duration or impact on the local community.'.
 No. 435, in 
clause 134, page 74, line 6, at end insert— 
 '(3A) Where the licensable activity in question is the retail of alcohol, a person does not commit an offence under this section if his only involvement is to consume alcohol sold on the premises.'.

Andrew Turner: The amendments test the Minister's convictions—not the convictions of which we spoke earlier, but his confidence in the convictions that he expressed at our proceedings last Thursday afternoon, when we were talking about morris dancers. The hon. Gentleman said at one point, referring to performances that take place in public at the sides of roads and so on:
''Such activities are not licensable. They will not be affected.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 8 May 2003; c. 443.]

Kim Howells: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Turner: I will indeed, but I was about to qualify what I was saying. To be fair, the Minister then was careful to say that the onus would be on the local authority. Later in the debate, at the point at which I accused him of drifting back towards his brief, he said:
''There is nothing to stop the local authority from licensing large stretches of public space such as streets, roads or greens, so that entertainment can be performed there.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 8 May 2003; c. 447.]
 He then went on a bit along those lines. At the time, I was left with the impression that it depended on the common sense of the licensing authority and that the hon. Gentleman was relying on licensing authorities to exercise common sense. I hope that that is not an unfair representation of what he said. 
 However, the problem is when something turns into a crime. As far as I know, it is not only the licensing authority that is able to bring a prosecution for an offence under this legislation. Therefore, the licensing authority may hold a common-sense view of the activity but someone else—who has not read the whole of the Minister's contribution to the debate on Thursday afternoon—may take a different view. For example, they may report the morris dancers to the police and tell them that they have committed a crime. The police will examine section 134, which is what this clause will become when the legislation reaches the statute book, and they will say, ''Well, yes, I am sorry but the morris dancers have committed a crime,'' because they have carried on or attempted to carry on 
''a licensable activity on or from any premises''
 —the village green, in this case—and they have done so 
''otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorisation,''
 as they did not have a licence. If the local authority had knowingly allowed them to carry on dancing without a licence, it would also have committed a crime. [Interruption.] 
 The hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) talks about the spontaneity of morris dancing. If a local authority official appears in the middle of a dance, and although he did not know in advance that the dance was going to take place, he now realises that it is taking place, he has a duty to stop the dancing; otherwise he would be knowingly allowing a licensable activity to be carried on. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gave me the opportunity to consider that example. 
 I do not want any confusion about this—[Interruption]—and I can see that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) does not want any either.

Kim Howells: The hon. Member for Torbay wants to go home.

Adrian Sanders: With bells on.

Andrew Turner: It is clear that there is a lot of morris dancing in Torbay.
 The amendment makes the situation absolutely clear, and it is also in line with the Minister's wishes as expressed on Thursday. It simply states: 
''No offence shall be committed where the licensable activity is of minimal duration or impact on the local community.''
 I am sure that that will make it crystal clear to the police that they are not expected to take too seriously an allegation that a local authority has neglected its duties by not bringing a prosecution, or by not preventing a licensable activity from continuing, in those circumstances. With that, I conclude my argument. 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Mark Hoban: Amendments Nos. 434 and 435 would delete subsections (2) and (3) from the clause. They are probing amendments to help us to understand the rationale behind the two subsections. Under subsection (2), if a person performs in a play, takes part in an indoor sporting event, boxes or wrestles, performs live music or plays recorded music or something similar, and those activities have not been licensed, he can be exempt from being found guilty of an offence of unauthorised licensable activity.
 The defence, which is provided by subsection (1), is that of due diligence, whereby a person has taken reasonable steps to assure himself that the event has been properly licensed in accordance with the Bill. I should have thought that that would be sufficient to cover sensible participants in boxing matches, wrestling, indoor sports and so on. Why have the Government chosen to go one step further to say that 
 even if people have not taken sensible measures to check whether the activity in which they are participating has been licensed, participation in the activity still does not give rise to an offence? I suspect that the topic was discussed in another place, and it would be useful for members of the Committee if the reasons underlying subsection (2) were put on the record.

Kim Howells: Amendments Nos. 441 and 442 would amend the Bill so that no offence would be committed when the licensable activity for which no authorisation was in place was of
''minimal duration or impact on the local community.''
 The amendments would be completely unworkable. They would offer the opportunity for people to ride roughshod over the licensing laws in the hope that they could persuade people, after the fact, that there was nothing to worry about. Their effect would be a little like saying that it should be legal for people to drive their cars at 100 mph for 20 minutes, so long as they had not killed anyone. 
 Who is to decide on the duration or impact of the licensable activity? We must not forget that what may seem reasonable to some may be a serious nuisance to others. The amendments would risk allowing any old Tom, Dick or Harry to set up a bar on the street, sell a large amount of alcohol for an hour—generating a significant profit and giving rise to all sorts of problems of crime and disorder—and then claim afterwards that because he had sold alcohol for only an hour, the activity was of minimal duration and he was not committing an offence. That is clearly absurd. It would be a serious anomaly, and I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will withdraw his amendment. 
 I shall move on to amendment No. 434. The Government are absolutely committed to providing a regulatory environment within which entertainment can thrive. The Bill is a key tool to help us achieve that aim. However, we have brought forward a range of concessions designed to deal with the worries raised by many performers. My tables were aching with piles of correspondence on such matters. All members of the Committee are only too familiar with the themes. One of those concessions was to make it clear in the Bill that entertainers would not be committing an offence if they simply took part in the provision of regulated entertainment, unless they had also had a hand in the organisation of that provision, in which case they would be responsible. Amendment No. 434 would reverse that concession. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press it, because if he does our postbags will be once again straining with letters. 
 Amendment No. 435 is designed to make it clear that 
''Where the licensable activity in question is the retail of alcohol, a person does not commit an offence under this section if his only involvement is to consume alcohol sold on the premises.''
 I hope that I can put the minds of Opposition Members at rest. The consumption of alcohol is not a licensable activity. No offence will have been committed if individuals consume alcohol that has been sold to them by retail without suitable 
 authorisation. The amendment is therefore unnecessary, and I hope that it will not be pressed either. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked who would bring prosecutions. I have written down in front of me ''prosecution/common sense''. Proceedings for any offence under the Bill may be instigated by a licensing authority, the Director of Public Prosecutions or, in rare circumstances, the local weights and measures authority. Despite the nightmare scenarios painted by the hon. Gentleman, I am confident that all of those bodies and authorities can be relied on to exercise good common sense in the public interest.

Andrew Turner: I am mildly comforted to learn that prosecutions can be brought only by the licensing authority, the DPP or the local weights and measures authority. I understand the problem of interpreting the phrase ''minimal duration or impact''. I am not sure that an hour counts as minimal, and certainly the courts would have no difficulty in reaching the interpretation that an hour that gave rise to all sorts of crime and disorder problems was of more than minimal impact. I also understand the difficulties that the Minister faces in accepting my amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 134 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 135 - Exposing alcohol for unauthorised sale

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 395, in
clause 135, page 74, line 16, leave out 'exposes' and insert 'offers'.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 443, in 
clause 135, page 74, line 25, leave out 'either destroyed or'.
 No. 444, in 
clause 136, page 74, line 39, leave out 'either destroyed or'.

Malcolm Moss: I shall be brief. As I read clause 135, I was perplexed as to why the reference to selling alcohol in retail situations was defined as exposing for sale rather than offering for sale or supplying in the case of clubs. Amendment No. 395 is probing; I want the Government to explain why they have chosen the word ''exposes'', and to explain its relevance to what we have been discussing. Is it lifted from existing legislation, or is the word defined elsewhere in the Bill? It is a new term, so it would be helpful to have it defined.

Andrew Turner: This is a jolly good amendment, because if alcohol is sold covertly—I think that the expression is ''under the counter''—it would not be exposed and therefore would not be subject to the clause. While we are about it, I take it that the sale of alcohol by mail order and other such means, although the alcohol may not be on the premises from which it is sold, is covered by the Bill.
Dr. Howells indicated assent.

Andrew Turner: The Minister nods. Are the premises for which the premises licence is required those at which the mail order is received, or are they the premises on which the alcohol is kept and from which it is dispatched? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will go into that matter a little further. If the alcohol were sold over the internet, in which case the order would not have been received on a particular premises, which premises would be relevant? I asked those questions simply to build on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire.
 My other amendments simply question whether the words ''either destroyed or'' under subsection (4) are redundant. If something that has been forfeited may be dealt with 
''in such other manner as the court may order'',
 it seems that that includes the action of destroying. Why has the Minister seen fit to specify ''destroyed'' in this and the subsequent clause?

Kim Howells: The clause makes it an offence to expose alcohol for sale by retail—as defined under clause 189—when the sale would not take place under and in accordance with a premises licence, a club premises certificate or a temporary event notice that satisfies the conditions under clause 96.
 Exposing alcohol for sale was the point in the supply chain deliberately chosen when the Bill was drafted. It is the point in the chain when alcohol is first made available to the consumer. It is right that the enforcement of the licensing regime should take effect at the earliest point, so that the likelihood of unauthorised sales is avoided to the greatest extent possible. 
 Moving to a later point in the supply chain involving an express offer of alcohol would weaken the enforcement of the regime. We consider that it is enough for the simple exposure of alcohol for sale to constitute an offence when the sale of that alcohol would be unauthorised. That reflects the offence provisions under the Licensing Act 1964 and the intention that an offence can be committed when no sale or attempted sale is, in fact, made. 
 The hon. Member for Isle of Wight asked what would happen if the alcohol were hidden under the counter. How, then, could it be ''exposed''? Well, that is a legal expression. If the alcohol were under the counter and no one knew that it existed, it never would be sold. I understand what the hon. Gentleman means, but that is not what exposing something for sale means in law.

Malcolm Moss: The Minister has just given me an inkling of why I tried to change the wording through the amendment. Presumably, sale by retail of alcohol would require a willing buyer as much as a willing seller. If alcohol were simply exposed, but the willing buyer did not know that it was for sale—which they would if it were on offer for sale—I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. However, I am not sure that I yet understand how we can define exposure if it is not obvious to a willing buyer that alcohol is there to be purchased. Perhaps he can help Opposition Members by citing some examples from existing legislation.
Mr. Turner rose—

Joe Benton: Order.

Malcolm Moss: Can the Minister give some examples of what is meant by exposure?

Kim Howells: I can deal with that. Under-the-counter sales, the other offences, include keeping alcohol on premises for unauthorised sale. Clause 136 refers to that. It deals with alcohol held covertly under the counter. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred to internet sales. They are covered under clause 136(1), which states:
''A person commits an offence if he has in his possession or under his control alcohol which he intends to sell by retail'',
 and that includes over the internet. 
 Clauses 135 and 136, the latter of which creates the offence of keeping alcohol on the premises for unauthorised sale or supply, both provide that following a conviction, the courts may order the forfeiture of the alcohol and its container, and its 
 destruction, or for it to be dealt with otherwise, as the court orders. I think that it was the hon. Gentleman, too, who asked why we have the word 'destruction' in there— 
 It being Five o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [29 October 2002] and the Order of the Committee [1 and 3 April 2003], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. 
 Amendment negatived. 
 The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Clauses 135 to 142 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Five o'clock till Thursday 15 May at five minutes to Nine o'clock.